unintelligent design.

[Jerry Smith]

As for the 1982 poll, the figures HAVE changed,

Without access to the numbers from the 1982 poll, I couldn't argue the point, but George Bishop, who did a study of his own, cited by abc and by the religioustolerance people seems to think that the numbers haven't changed much.

In 1982 you were peer-pressured into saying evolution is right or blackballed out of science all together.

Silly conspiracy theory. Gallup polls don't name names. Besides, what was Kurt Wise doing in 1982? My understanding is that he was a vocal Creationist right from the beginning. Didn't seem to slow him down much.


Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. Geology (Paleontology)
Education:
B.A. Geophysical Sciences (Majored in Geology while close to a second major in Biology), University of Chicago - 1981
M.A. Geology, Harvard University - 1984
Ph.D. Geology (Paleontology), Harvard University - 1989
Ph.D. dissertation: The Estimation of True Taxonomic Durations from Fossil Occurrence Data. [/quote](source: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/wise.html)

I'll hit my gallup books tonight after I get home and post some stats.

I'll be interested to see what you come up with.

 

[Jerry Smith]

so we are switching varibles in midstream?

Dude, there are two sets of statistics discussed here, one by Moore, one by Gallup. Moore restricts his data set to life sciences. Gallup included a general grouping of "Scientists". There were three polls mentioned from Gallup, but only the 1997 poll was used for statistics. The 1982 poll was mentioned because, according to a third party (Bishop) the Gallup results were very similar in '82 and '97 (and in between). So no, I've been talking about the statistics from blader's link the whole time - not just Moore's & not just Gallup's. Both. I mentioned that Moore's were in substantial agreement with Gallup's, early on.

 

[RufusAtticus]

I'm still waiting for a response to my challenge from post #203.

 

[LouisBooth]

"abc and by the religioustolerance people seems to think that the numbers haven't changed much. "

Hmm..so you're willing to put full confidence in stats cited by ABC..?

I wouldn't.

"Silly conspiracy theory. "

Not at all if 50% are computer science majors or the like who have no business talking about the subject authoritativly. That has been my vast experience on the net and in real life.

"Didn't seem to slow him down much"

Did you get a e-mail from him stating so? Jerry, think about it man, science is a politcal game just like any other. The 80s were quite well known for it. It is changing that is why more and more scientists are saying no, we disagree with evolution.

"The 1982 poll was mentioned because, according to a third party (Bishop) the Gallup results were very similar in '82 and '97 "

I didn't see Bishope quote the results saying they were just like the gallup poll. From what I read they were different studies. This is why I'm questioning the gallup poll questions.

"I'll be interested to see what you come up with."

You'd be surprised. I'll bring the book tomorrow.

 

[Morat]

  List those scientists. I require that they work in the field, and have published at least one paper dealing with evolution. Obviously, I couldn't care less what mathemeticians or engineer's think.

   Let me know!